Am I the only one not impressed with the screen?

[Lens of Truth]

The console is £250 without bells and whistles and that's the UK markup with the fact that our stores set the price themselves and the state takes a huge chunk.

 

..much smaller than I'd thought it would be.

I'm surprised by this. Personally I wouldn't want it any bigger. After all it's not an ipad with a few tiny buttons squeezed in at the sides.

[Serebii]

 

Then why not make everyone happy; use an HD screen for the two screen mode use the lower resolution and then when you want to play just using the pad, it ups the resolution to HD.

 

Not to mention, as developers get used to the system they'll be able to code it more efficiently and squeeze more power out of it.

 

Also, I find it hard to believe they're losing money on a £300 console using tech that's far from state-of-the-art.

 

They'd still have to shore up the specs of the system to do it. It's not a feasible thing.

 

The console's price matches the components that are within it. It's not Nintendo's fault they can't sell the console at a $300 loss like Sony did with the PS3. People seem to forget that these are businesses, not charities

[Daft]

I don't think they would. It's perfectly feasible. You're making excuses.

[Serebii]

I don't think they would. It's perfectly feasible. You're making excuses.

No, it's not feasible without increasing costs severely

[Zechs Merquise]

If Nintendo were to increase the build quality, use better components and increase the power of the console it would have only led to two things:

 

1) An increase in the cost for the consumers.

 

or

 

2) A greater loss at retail for Nintendo.

 

Neither would have been a wise decision to make as Nintendo would either have severly limited their market or made catastophic loses.

[Dcubed]

More importantly, what everyone seems to be forgetting here is that it would increase the video streaming latency; defeating the whole purpose of the Gamepad in the first place...

 

And besides, the Gamepad still has a higher DPI than the iPad 2 and the iPhone 3GS. It's more than good enough for what it is. Your HDTV is hardly a retina display anyway.

[heroicjanitor]

More importantly, what everyone seems to be forgetting here is that it would increase the video streaming latency; defeating the whole purpose of the Gamepad in the first place...

 

And besides, the Gamepad still has a higher DPI than the iPad 2 and the iPhone 3GS. It's more than good enough for what it is. Your HDTV is hardly a retina display anyway.

 

It is higher than the iPad 2 but not the iPhone 3GS.

[Dcubed]

It is higher than the iPad 2 but not the iPhone 3GS.

 

Bah! Close enough :p

[Choze]

The OneX screen is on the expensive side. One of the best on the market. Costs more than the AMOLED in the S3/Nokia's but less than the one in the iPhone 5.

 

I havent tried the WiiU yet. The screen is a tricky one cost wise as its about balance. But the touch screen side sounds weak so far. Its more natural to use your fingers not a stylus. Nintendo since the Wii do have a habit of weird choices like the weak RAM and CPU they chose.

[flameboy]

The console is £250 without bells and whistles and that's the UK markup with the fact that our stores set the price themselves and the state takes a huge chunk.

 

I'm surprised by this. Personally I wouldn't want it any bigger. After all it's not an ipad with a few tiny buttons squeezed in at the sides.

 

There's plenty of space for the same size buttons and a bigger screen....The whole thing feels very light they easily could have accommodated a better screen and better battery. Which is my other huge issue with the Gamepad, it's physically big enough to have a much bigger battery. Tying gamers into a 3 hour battery life or forcing them to sit near a plug kind of destroys a lot of what's great about the

 

They'd still have to shore up the specs of the system to do it. It's not a feasible thing.

 

The console's price matches the components that are within it. It's not Nintendo's fault they can't sell the console at a $300 loss like Sony did with the PS3. People seem to forget that these are businesses, not charities

 

I don't think they would. It's perfectly feasible. You're making excuses.

 

I'm totally with Daft here. What's wrong with people expecting a quality gaming product from the big 3 companies who dominate this industry? Why should we put up with cost cutting measures at the expense of experience. Your expecting people to buy into their platform for 5,7 even 10 years. Also this talk of this being the first Nintendo console to be sold at a lose is a null point. Reggie came out and said they only need an attach rate of one game per console for it to be profitable so by my reckoning of merchant prices etc...they are selling the console at maybe a 16-23 pound lose....

 

What's to be confused about? There aren't any contradictions there. It functions, quite well by all accounts, but could have been better (bigger/better screen, higher contrast, better touch screen, etc).

 

Like I said, HD screens (this whole 'retina' thing apple bang on about (fuck you, iPad Mini, btw)) are now fairly standard it's not unfair to be disappointed by the controller screen. Eurogamer point out that the controller wouldn't even cost that much to manufacture; 'In a world where Chinese manufacturers can sell complete Android tablets with capacitive touch-screens for £50, it's safe to say that the Wii U GamePad won't be costing Nintendo too much to construct.' The console is fairly pricey too for what it offers power wise so it's a little biting that the controller had room to have a little more invested in it.

 

Anyway, what's the problem, the WiiU isn't perfect. Technology rarely is, especially when it's launched. People are allowed to have gripes and this is a legitimate one that may bother some people.

 

Personally, the only thing that's really bothering me is the loading times, they sound horrendous.

 

That's my point about the GamePad you have fully functioning independent tablets that have tons of other functionality (including working fantastic with smartglass, granted not quite the same but still) along with all the other components. As for the Wii U console itself it's made from outsourced chips etc.... greatly reducing the cost.

[Choze]

More importantly, what everyone seems to be forgetting here is that it would increase the video streaming latency; defeating the whole purpose of the Gamepad in the first place...

 

And besides, the Gamepad still has a higher DPI than the iPad 2 and the iPhone 3GS. It's more than good enough for what it is. Your HDTV is hardly a retina display anyway.

 

Erm no it wouldn't increase latency. Its just higher quality. What does that have to do with latency? It will push the WiiU hardware more but thats it. Many games are already running at sub resolution of the screen anyhow.

 

DPI is a fairly meaningless spec to give small screens some sort of useless advantage. Resolution is a much more useful spec. What is the resolution of the gamepad? whats the quality of the lcd like?

 

If Nintendo were to increase the build quality, use better components and increase the power of the console it would have only led to two things:

 

1) An increase in the cost for the consumers.

 

or

 

2) A greater loss at retail for Nintendo.

 

Neither would have been a wise decision to make as Nintendo would either have severly limited their market or made catastophic loses.

 

 

This is Nintendo they just rip people off since Iwata came along. Its one thing to have a high margin product, its another to take the piss like what Nintendo are trying to do right now. WiiU will get a price cut like the 3DS. WiiU obscenely priced right now.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Choze
Automerged Doublepost

[Zechs Merquise]

This is Nintendo they just rip people off since Iwata came along. Its one thing to have a high margin product, its another to take the piss like what Nintendo are trying to do right now. WiiU will get a price cut like the 3DS. WiiU obscenely priced right now.

 

Unless you've been living in a cave for the last month you'll know that Nintendo are making a small loss on every system sold.

 

So please tell us all, if a company is selling something at a loss, how are they pricing it in a way that would be 'obscene'?

 

Bearing in mind the definition of obscene:

 

1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.

2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.

3. Repulsive; disgusting:.

4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous

 

Clearly you would be referring to the term 'obscene' in the way I have highlighted.

 

However if a company is selling a product at a loss it would be idiotic to suggest the price of the product was obscene as the point of a business is to make profit. 'Obscene' would refer to a company selling a product at an incredible profit margin and possibly in doing so harming society in some wider context.

 

An example would be a pharmaceutical company selling medication at a 600% profit leading to those who need it most not being able to afford it and suffering because of the company's lust for profit.

 

So as Nintendo do not have a high margin of profit and are in fact making a loss you are talking shite.

 

You now also know the correct definition of the word 'obscene'.

[darkjak]

If Nintendo were to increase the build quality, use better components and increase the power of the console it would have only led to two things:

 

1) An increase in the cost for the consumers.

 

or

 

2) A greater loss at retail for Nintendo.

 

Neither would have been a wise decision to make as Nintendo would either have severly limited their market or made catastophic loses.

 

Well, by not doing either, they have probably shot themselves in the foot. Casuals have moved over to casu... I mean cellphones. The core gamers are firstly very spec oriented, secondly very software oriented.

 

To me, when I chose to buy an HD console, it wasn't because I was waving my arms above my hand shouting "HD, HD, HD", like the PS3 fanboys were. I just saw that the software lineup was poor. When I made my choice between PS3 and XB360, I only looked on ONE thing: software. Which console had more stellar titles? Well, the 360 had Forza 2, while Gran Turismo 5 was being eternally being pushed into the future, the Xbox had Fable and Mass Effect while the PS3 at that time... didn't.

 

If the Wii U is so underpowered that it's just marginally better than current gen systems, then there'll be a multiplatform game drought and without any casuals that can be tricked in to buying the ancient tech... game over!

 

Don't get me wrong, I've preordered the Wii U and I think I'm going to buy all multiplat games I can for the Wii U rather than my 360 and I'll avoid buying the PS4/Xbox3 if I can. I'm rather talking about this from a business standpoint.

[Choze]

Unless you've been living in a cave for the last month you'll know that Nintendo are making a small loss on every system sold.

 

I would trust the people taking the WiiU apart over Reggie who claimed the WiiU was more powerful than the existing consoles amongst tons of BS. Given that Nintendo have mislead almost every step of the way who do you think people trust? As it is this system is weaker than the Wii not even counting the casual side of things.

 

Yes they make at a loss at this stage regardless (R&D, marketing, initial launch costs of production etc.) but even Reggie has said they make a profit the moment you purchase anything else with the basic model. There is too much of an effort to turn an insane profit. Previous Nintendo were serious consoles. Look at the charging for 'young' people accounts and lack of optical output. The approach is looking silly. I wish Yamauchi would come back show how its done. In the past Nintendo at least made sure the basics and essentials were good. Not anymore. Even the 3DS has worse battery life than a Vita somehow. Lack of sata in WiiU is just strange. Load times will always be slower than PS3 or 360. Some features removed cost just a few pennies per console.

 

Given the previous announcements it seems the console was more powerful at one point but has been downgraded quite a bit prior to release. I'll try and get a hands on demo sometime soon. The screen should be interesting. I hope its not that bad.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Choze

[Rummy]

Agree with Choze's post above somewhat.

 

I don't believe they'll won't make a loss on this system at all. Turning a profit on a single game sale excluding the one bundled with? They'll easily hit the attach rate to make a profit. Tech's advancing at a rapid rate, cost of production/ability to produce more as a result continues. They'll be manufacturing base system at profit within the year I reckon, if not sooner. Nintendo certainly appear to be all about the profit, which is understandable as they're a business, but some customers/consumers see it as being more about money than about them. Sadly it's probably not a large enough market to make a dent now given conquering of other demogrpahics. They're well in pocket from the Wii and DS/3DS, why *couldn't* they either take a bigger hit on the system, or manufacture it more powerful at the same price and take the hit that way? Love of money, that's why.

[mcj metroid]

You know I kinda miss when these companies used to take slight jabs at each other during the Ps2/Xbox/Gamecube era. Made things more funny.

[Rummy]

Just read this which is somewhat relevant to the tech/underpowered/price skimping discussion;

 

http://kotaku.com/5962828/thq-tries-to-clear-up-comments-that-the-wii-u--has-a-horrible-slow-cpu?tag=wii-u

 

Now, I am NOT trying to poopoo the Wii U for the sake of it. I want one, eventually. I want it to impress me though, I want it to be able to compete - most of all, I want it to be worth the money I'm going to pay for it. However articles like the one above reflect the facts - the developers are finding it underwhelming. I know people will argue the classic point and say 'new tech new methods etc' and they need to learn to work with it, and yes this is true; but shouldn't it be more of a 'oh wow this thing has so much going on we don't even know HOW to do stuff with it' rather than 'well the cpu doesn't seem up to the task we've got for it we just don't know how to do stuff with it'? Hopefully things will improve with time, but it just seems like getting off on bad footing to me.

[Lens of Truth]

To be honest, I'm really surprised people just don't *get* that Nintendo aren't in the tech arms race. The one time they did (sort of) have a shot at that it was their least successful console.

 

Whether we like it or not Nintendo have set out since the DS what they're all about these days and how they are different from other options on the market. They like to create nice workable platforms that are affordable and profitable for them, and give sufficient oportunites to develop their traditional franchises and provide room for innovation.

 

I think it's really odd that we expect them to make Sony style losses. Nintendo are only in this for videogames - it's all they do and all they have. Subsidies from TV, PC, phone, camera sales etc etc aren't an option.

 

The thing I'd have liked improved if an extra £100 was either wacked on to the retail price or Nintendo's losses would be a slightly higher internal spec. The screen seems absolutely fine to me, in fact really quite nice and crisp (but it's worth mentioning I don't have a retina screen phone/tablet).

[Grazza]

Personally, the screen is the last thing I'd spend more money on, but I do wonder if it's been downgraded. Hands-on reports from last year stated you "couldn't see the pixels" (ie. it's the equivalent of "Retina"). Not that I've used one, but it doesn't sound as impressive as that now. As I say though, it's the last thing I'd spend money on (handhelds are a different matter as it's the only screen).

 

Given the previous announcements it seems the console was more powerful at one point but has been downgraded quite a bit prior to release.

 

This is exactly what frustrates me.

 

Most of us here love Nintendo, but they do have a habit of showing you something to excite you, then not delivering. If you rewind to E3 2011, everyone loved the Zelda demo and I think most people were expecting a more powerful machine. Of course, to expect Nintendo to match future consoles from the other two would be unreasonable, but I'm staggered that its CPU (and apparently now the RAM) can't match the Xbox 360/PS3. That's the thing that's disappointing - not that it 's not up there with the PS4.

 

Nintendo owes us nothing, but at the same time if they want our money they have to make us want their products. Sometimes I think they forget about how to excite people. Well, they know how to do it, they just choose not to most of the time.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Grazza

[Choze]

To be honest, I'm really surprised people just don't *get* that Nintendo aren't in the tech arms race. The one time they did (sort of) have a shot at that it was their least successful console.

 

I 100% agree with the notion that Nintendo dont need to be the same. Differences are good. A less powerful console is absolutely fine. I just dont agree with the WiiU however. Also I think Nintendo's engineering is odd nowadays rather than smart. Well they still are smart but the WiiU is not clever like the GC which was pretty cheap yet very powerful. I cant understand why it has to be this way. Its too extreme. MS are supposedly releasing a cheap xbox aimed at casual entertainment and games. No idea how close it will be to WiiU yet.

 

QUOTE=Grazza;1507738]Personally, the screen is the last thing I'd spend more money on, but I do wonder if it's been downgraded.

 

Well it depends. On the iphone 5 the screen is supposedly the most expensive single piece in the hardware. Its a phone and you look at the screen 99% of the time. I think the iPhone really changed the focus for smartphones when it comes to screens. A controller isn't the same thing as say a Vita or iPhone.

 

Here is a nice comparison of some popular screens. Includes the OneX and S3's AMOLED. Samsung's AMOLED is cheaper than the two LCD screens has great contrast and superb black levels(OLED based). Its interesting that the S3 screen is large because they couldn't make it smaller at that resolution at the time. This isnt a problem with LCD. The green tint is because of the pentile structure.

 

http://smartphoneblogging.com/2010/09/nexus-one-slcd-vs-nexus-one-amoled-showdown-which-screen-technology-is-better/

 

 

LCD screens shown here are more accurate when it comes to colour and have traditional pixels(notice the clarity of text with smoothing) but will ghost abit with motion while contrast and black levels not as good against AMOLED.

 

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Display-Comparison-Apple-iPhone-5-vs-Samsung-Galaxy-S-III-vs-HTC-One-X-vs-Nokia-Lumia-900_id35171

 

For the WiiU these are all too much. A cheap LCD screen would be nice. But I guess the screen isnt the most frustrating thing about the hardware. Its just weird having so many odd stuff this time round compared to usual. Anyhow I will check out the WiiU this weekend if i find one.

[Kaxxx]

Played Nintendoland in GAME yesterday and thought the gamepad screen was great.